steelshark

What I would like to see is, with the lash enchantments the lowest of all apllziing DR types is chosen. eg.: Sword with Burning lash goes against the lowest of pierce/slash/fire. However I suspect that the lash damage has to against its corresponding DR alone, which would be very disappointing.

In my opinion it also shows inconsistencies. For example: Pallegina has "Soldier" as a Background, which is fine. And she has a Greatsword, which is also...ok (would prefer Shield + elegant Weapon). But then she has a Pistol. Which is not only not in her weapon Group, but it is in the Ruffian Group. Eder also clearly states that he was in an Army, which suggests "Soldier", but he also starts with a Ruffian Weapon (Sabre). Is there any way we can change the groupings around? Anyone knows how to mod the files? I don't care about Achievements btw, so "cheating" is ok, as long as it makes sense to me .

Hi, Since the game was released I was trying to figure out which weapon to give to which character, and also doing so in keeping with the feel and backstory/concept of each character. But more and more I find myself stumbling over the sometimes odd weapon grouping. Examples: Ruffian has 2 Firearms, including the Pistol, which, to me, seems a rather "gentleman"-weapon, which should belong to say Noble. Noble has 2 Magic Implements. Wasn't there any way to split them up between 3 groups? Then you have Greatsword AND Pike in Soldier. Pike seems ok, but Greatsword sounds knightly to me. Knight gets Morningstar, which is a 2H for whatever reason... Now I know you can't make everyone happy with those sorts of distributions, but could at least the pistol and rod swap places?

Very Interesting. It feels like it's coming together. On the point of "Might": Like others have mentioned already it seems a bit odd that it governs physical and mental "Strength". I'd rather have more attributes, that have very clear purposes than less which may be compounds of attributes. ie.: You could have 1 "Body" attribute to describe how tough, strong, fast etc. you are. But I'd rather have separated attributes. I'm not saying that there should be 20, but instead of the traditional 6 why not go for 10? It could even work like GURPS where some attributes depend on others > Perception based on Intelligence, but still separately modifiable. br, Steel edit: regarding symetrical or asymetrical stats: Please, for the love of everything that you consider valuable or holy: Use a symetrical system, meaning everything has the same "framework" of stats. An Ogre should not deal massive damage because the monster-entry says +massive damage, but because he has massive strength. If Ogres are "too strong" you could still lower it's strength. No need to adjust the effects of the attribute itself.

Hi everyone, I guess I'll just chip in my 2 cents: There are a few things that came to my mind when reading over the posts. Now, as probably everyone, I'd wish for a good variety of enemies. But I'd restict that to the kind of variety that actually makes sense. To me it seems some settings are way to crowded with overly powerful monsters, for civilization to actually be able to survive. Also, intelligent, humanoid monsters automatically make more interesting enemies (IMHO), since they can have wildely differing equipment and agendas, whereas wolves, zombies or even very exotic, yet unintelligent, monsters mostly come only in one or two flavours. As for "epic" monsters/enemies, my thought is that it's not the "toughness" of that enemy that matters so terribly much, but the "uniqueness". If there is one, and only one, giant balrog-type demon, say as an optional enemy summmoned during a ritualdone by long standing enemies, i'd feel it's ok. It does however become bland if you walk into "hell" and the very same demon becomes your average "mob". I think that devaluates previous encounters with such monsters. On the topic of "don't bring monster X, it's so stereotypical", I can only say that some stereotypes persist because they make sense. Dragons, Zombies, Skeletons, Orcs, Demons, and Wizards are tried and true elements of d&d-type, tolkien-esque settings. Lastly I think that an overcrowding of the world with monsters should be avoided, for the sake of immersion/realism. If I get ambushed by trolls, dragons, demons and whatnot every 5 meters as soon as i step out of the city gate, I (outgame) am going to wonder how economy in this setting is still existing. br, Rizzo edit: Oh, one more thing that i just thought of: To give the world a subtle hue of ... "matureness"? I guess (don't know how I should put it), It would be interesting to get a feeling that the "monsters" are not all purely evil, and just waiting to kill me and my friends, and that there is something of a world outside my screen. A bunch of zombies with the ragged clothes of a farmer familiy, perhaps including a somewhat smaller zombie, is going to make me think "who where the poor people that turned into zombies". An evil cultist with a loveletter from another cultist makes them more human, less one-dimensional. And in consequence it could make my actions not seem as "purely white" as it's sometimes the case in such games. I really like the thought of the stormcloak vs. imperial war in skyrim, as there was no "right" or "good" side.

I'm all for "no minigame", since it would allow the player to use his skill, instead of using the characters skill. IMHO, all actions should be based upon a chacters skill, not the players. That is, all actions apart from tactics, strategy, choosing equipment and so on. The reason I don't like minigames is the same reason I don't like quick-time events. Either a character knows what he's doing, and doesn't need the players guiding hand, or he doesn't, and shouldn't be able to use the outgame player as a crutch. You wouldn't allow players to enter their own, witty, dialogue-lines to circumvent a diplomacy, or bluff skill-check, would you? Why have it for lockpicking. Instead allow other ways around it. Breaking locks, or even the whole chest open is a viable, albeit loud, option. Arcanum also had a spell to open locks, that explicitly alerted people in a radius (afaik), which seemed realistic enough to me. Just have some content designed for stealthy/thievy characters, so that they won't become all useless.

One logical flaw I see with skyrims armor system: It's armor value was translated to a percentage that reduced all incoming damage. That sounds fine. But how exactly does a person increase the performance of Armor in such a drastic way that Skyrim showed? (Probably Magic ) What I would like to see in an Armor system is that armors have pro's and con's, limitations, and relatively fixed performance value based on design and material. Steel Plate is Steel Plate, no matter how familiar you are with it. I can see small bonuses to the absorbtion/damage reduction, and to the maximum dexterity that is usable, but not in such quantities that the armor itself becomes a second thought to the skill used (which is what happened in skyrim).

Is it perhaps too much to ask for 2+ inventory-modes? advanced > inventory tetris+backpacks normal > bg-style

I think "crafting" should be more in the line of "letting some proffesional do it for you". BG1/2 had good options. But I was missing a sort of "ordering" system. Say I want 100 Arrows+1... why can't i ask for these to be made for me?

What is wrong with just playing the game again, from the start, without game+. I've done it in many rpg's, and most didn't offer game+. Game+ seems to be a console-"receive gameerpoints"-achievement-thing, which i absolutely do not like. I don't need a pat on the back in the from of an achiement. Not for using a spell 50 times, not for solving a quest, and not for playing through the game. At best, it is just like playing with the same character, just with nicer gear and abilities. At worst it has a huge impact on balancing. ^^game+ = bad option IMHO edit: The Mass Effect series was a major pain in the a** for me for just that reason. Play through the game... now you can have an extra skill...what?why? Oh and you can also start with spectre-gear...which you aren't at the start.

I am strongly FOR Objective-based XP. Reason: Quests and/or Objectives can be built in a way that multiple paths lead to solving them, which likely leads to players using the XP to buy skills/abilities they want, not those that are "needed" (mostly combat). Combat is fine. I like combat. But alternatives to combat can greatly enhance the gameplay. Please just don't force players down a single path. Deus Ex Human revolution was a bad example in 2 ways: 1.) Boss Fights. I was just massively disappointed about this. Whole game being stealthy... and then forced open fights = no-go. 2.) XP for doing things one way (non-lethal / up-close). Combined with the 1-key-takedown it just screamed "look at the cool animations" to me. Bloodlines was a very nice example of how XP can be done. Although i would also leave out "extra"-XP for doing things one way. ie: Goal is to find documents > 5xp Quest-giver also wants you to kill all guards. Don't give xp for killing all guards. Give an "in-game" bonus (money/items).

Ugh... please no magical "just carry everything you find"-inventory ala mass effect. It's ridiculous. Killing bandits, looting their Leather Armors, and swords should not be your primary money-source. It should either be high-value/low-weight items (jewelery, magic-stuff), or straight out monetary rewards for quests. With backpacks, you could also have "money-pouches" which act as backpacks for very small items > rings, amulets, gems, etc. And of course bags of holding of various sizes/shapes become instantly possible. example: bag of holding the size of a very small pouch. Yes it can hold very large quantities (infinite?), but the opening is still to small to carry say a fullplate. So what you would get would be an infinitely long bar of 1x1 inventory slots, while armor should be at least 3x4.

Just playing BG:T, and what really bothers me is that the party does not move as a cohesive unit, but rather as 6 individuals, that also sometimes block each other. They should try to keep formation even while moving (no jumpstarts from 1-2 characters). Perhaps in addition to formations characters could get tags such as "front, center and rear" for the game to know which characters should go first through doors/ tight halls. ie.: 6 people, 3 tanks I want 1 tank as a rear-guard. So i tag 2 tanks front, 3 normal as center, and 1 tank as rear.

My 2 cents: Focus on solid looking Models, solid believable animations, perhaps with some footwork in combat too, as some animations in crpg feel very static. High-poly models can most likely be patched/modded in, so should not be a priority. Finishing moves are nice, IF they are short, otherwise they become repetitive.

To throw in my 2 cents on armor: I'm not a fan of having "armor" decrease the chance of your enemy hitting you. It always felt more natural to have the following defense-system: 1.) to hit vs. evade (dodge/parry/block) 2.) damage vs. armor Where one must decide, which part of defense he prefers, or is more suited to the character. The more you focus on one are of these 4 (hit, evade, damage, armor), the more the other 3 decrease. Since the player does not have to keep track/keep rolling, a hit-zone model would perhaps also increase variation. Wearing ONLY a heavy plate on the torso, and a helm, is good defense until someone chops your arm off For more inspiration take a look at GURPS's system. Also DSA/TDE > "Das schwarze Auge / The dark eye" is quite good with this. It is used in the "Drakensang" crpg.